It seems bizarre to equate Jesus' prophetic act as 'violent' at all, if
our definition of violence has anything to do with 'doing harm to others.' Sure, the temple incident was 'violent' in the broader sense that it was a show of force or an intervention. But that's not how the Bible uses the term: throughout the Bible, the word 'violence' is associated with injustice, bloodshed and death. There's a galaxy of distance between what Jesus did in the temple and killing one's enemies -- something Jesus spoke directly against. This is especially so
when just days later he rebukes Peter with the command, "Put down your sword. Those who live
by the sword, die by the sword" -- an injunction the early church canonized and understood as a universal instruction for all Christians (cf. John Driver, How Christians Made Peace With War).

Even for readers who believe in some forms of 'just violence' in lawful ways (e.g., police action), the temple incident is not the place to start or end. As we'll see, it has nothing to do with justifying the Christian use of violence. So then, what do we make of Jesus' seemingly out-of-character actions? Here are some thoughts:

1.
It was not a spontaneous outburst of anger. Jesus didn't have tantrums. He only did what he saw his Father
doing (Jn. 5:19). His words and deeds were expressions of what he was told as he
listened carefully to the Father--sometimes in the moment, sometimes in early morning prayer. I would propose that what happened at the
temple was deliberate, strategic and prophetic. But of what?

2.
We know that Jesus was deliberately recalling the prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah
when he went into the temple, because he quotes both of them there as explanations of his actions (Jer. 7, Isa. 56).
The link to Jeremiah is extremely important because both Jesus and Jeremiah go on to prophesy the same warning: the forthcoming destruction of
Jerusalem and its temple, along with the horrible slaughter of the inhabitants
of the city (Jer. 7, Mk. 13). So we know Jesus is warning the temple establishment that they will ultimately trigger the siege and destruction of the temple by foreign armies. His counsel is not to be strong and courageous and defend the city with a Maccabean-style revolt (which will actually cause the destruction), but to
literally head for the hills (Mk. 13:14) or be slaughtered en masse (which Josephus describes, just as predicted).

3.
But why didn't Jesus just say this? Why also start overturning tables and driving
out animals? As I've said, this was no tantrum. Rather, in the tradition of the Jewish prophets, and parallel to his prophetic curse of the fig tree, Jesus was prophetically
acting out the coming final upheaval of the temple, just like Jeremiah!

In
Jeremiah 19, God tells Jeremiah to go to the gate overlooking the Valley of
Hinnom (Gehenna, which we mistranslate 'hell') and to symbolically shatter a ceramic jar. The shattered jar portends the
destruction of the city by Babylonian armies, then Jeremiah goes to the temple and repeats the prophetic warning. Jesus is doing the same thing: 'Hey everyone,
repent! Because if you don't, the same thing is going to happen again!' He ends
up weeping because Jerusalem could not see the things that would make for peace
(i.e., embracing the Prince of Peace).

In fact, at the end of Luke 19, we have Jesus' last recorded words before he strides into the temple. He explicitly declares the meaning of what he's about to do:

41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

4. All of this is certain. After carefully reading the text, we needn't imagine Jesus literally flogging people. The text never says that. In fact, the Synoptic Gospels (Matt., Mark and Luke) only say that he was driving out the buyers and sellers. How? By overturning the tables of the money-changers and the benches of those selling doves and 'says to them' (Mt. 21:13), 'taught them' (Mk. 11:17).

Only in John 2 do we read that he fashioned a whip. What does he do with it exactly?

14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”

It appears obvious that this 'driving out' can be broken down this way: a., Jesus was using the whip to shoo out the animals; b., he overthrows tables to scatter the coins and doves; and c., he turns and speaks (Loudly? Probably!) to the merchants. Is he being 'violent'? If creating a scene is violent, of course? But in any way that violates his own commands not to strike back? It's just not there.

In fact, in John 2, after he uses the whip, the temple authorities are hardly laying there bleeding. Nor is the temple guard alerted to restrain Jesus. Rather, the spectacle leads to a debate: the 'Jews' (= Judean leaders) argue with him about his authority and ask Jesus for a sign. He tells them, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will rebuild it" (Jn. 2:19).

5. This leads us to two points to puzzle over:

a. This is
peripheral, but again, note that we only see the whip in John 2. Also, it's only in John 2 that we hear the evangelist reflect in retrospect: "The temple he was referring to was
the temple of his body" (Jn. 20:21). Perhaps the whip in John 2 connects indirectly to the picture of Jesus' own body
being flogged (in John 19). John has placed the incident at the front end of his Gospel--a literary rather than chronological choice--as an opening bracket to correspond with the closing bracket of the passion of Christ at the end.

b. Picturing this scene is difficult on a number of fronts.

a. the size of the temple precincts was enormous? Did he really clear the whole place, or did Jesus choose a strategic spot to do this work of 'performance art'?

b. Obviously, not everyone left, because Jesus starts healing the blind and the lame, welcoming the children's cheers (Mt. 21:14-16), and debating with the authorities (Jn. 2).

c. If Jesus was being 'violent,' why do the leaders only plot to kill him? Why don't they order the temple guard to arrest him immediately? We know that they feared him (Mk. 11:18) and his popularity with the crowd. But also, if he was so 'violent', how could Jesus say at his arrest,

"And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me" (Mk. 14:48-49).

Worth pondering I think.

Closing Questions:

1. Was Jesus being 'violent' in the temple? Not in any way that corresponds with hurting or harming people. Quite the opposite. In a dramatic prophetic act, he is trying
to warn and protect them from the forthcoming harm at the hands of Rome.

2. Can Jesus' 'zeal' in the temple incident be employed as a justification for
Christian violence? Actually, it was violent religious zeal that reacted to
Jesus' dramatic act and led the Sanhedrin to call for his torture and death. Such a use of the text negates Jesus' commandments to love one's enemy, pray for one's abusers, and forgive those who would harm
us. Recently another Christian told me that seeing it this way is to have my head in the
sand. I asked him, 'Would you submit to Jesus' call to follow the way of
the Cross and obey His commands in the Sermon on the Mount?' I wasn't surprised to receive no answer to that question.

3. Was Jesus actually 'cleansing' the temple? No, probably not. Technically, he is declaring
the complete destruction of the temple.

It seems to me that most people who try to defend Christ as non-violent lack a bit of common sense and are also not familiar with extra-biblical accounts of this event. Could a single person really have overpowered everyone in the Temple? Certainly not. Jewish tradition relates that he had stormed the Temple with more than 300 of his followers, which would explain how he managed to 'cleanse' the temple. His disciples also robbed the Temple of its holy objects as recorded in apocryphal texts. More information here: http://www.riaanbooysen.com/the-triumphal-entry-and-cleansing-of-temple

I agree that he was not being violent. There does, as you indicated, seem to be a prophetic significance to his actions, and the term "performance art" is a good way to think of it.

I also see this as possibly an illustration of God's "judgment." Many people think of violence when considering "God's judgment," we quickly forget about the statement "God is love" and the many loving acts and words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. The closest we get to him demonstrating any sort of "violence" is in this temple cleansing story. I think it puts a different spin on the idea of divine judgment, because he was hardly condemning anyone. It was as you suggested, more of a warning, but not a warning about "God's wrath," a warning to turn away from the lie they were living and embrace the truth. In this sense, God doesn't save us from himself, he saves us from ourselves. So I think it could rightly be said that Jesus, being the very likeness of God's character, was doing what he always did - being a living example of God's love.

I also recall hearing once that the temple leaders may have been requiring people to use animals sold in the temple for sacrifices, instead of bringing their own. In the name of making sure animals were "pure" enough, they were effectively limiting people's access to bring offerings to God. (Which is the sort of thing Jesus would've been quick to denounce.)

However I don't have a source handy to back that up ... don't suppose anyone can confirm that isn't just made up? Could come in handy when I'm speaking on John 2 in a few weeks!

Jesus' cleansing of the Temple was likely an enacted prophecy foretelling of Israel's destruction. In my book "Heaven on Earth: Experiencing the Kingdom of God in the Here and Now" (Available on Amazon) and "Subversive Meals" (forthcoming July 2013) I explain non-violent enacted prophecies and enacted parables and give example.

I would also like to add a secondary prophetic voice. Would it be possible that Jesus is also showing the ability to cleanse us (the new temple of God), by being able to drive out those things that deter us from being able to communicate with the Father? I would like to think that Jesus' words are just as important for us today. "If we only knew the things for peace....greed and filling our hearts (temples) with sacrifices and things the Lord does not desire. Just a weird thought from left field. :)